Do you support Canadian Troops?


View Poll Results: Do you support the Canadian Military
Yes 25 80.65%
No 5 16.13%
Only when they do something for men, anyother time no 1 3.23%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Jersay
#1
Now I will put it to a poll to see if people on this forum support Canadian troops. This is a question at the Canadian members, but I don't see why not other members like in America or overseas can't post as well.

i would like to know why?

And where you are politically? (Just for fun)

-----------

I being a member of the Canadian Forces support it full-heartedly because we are basically family and even if you don't like the government, the individual soldier is doing his mission for his own reasons, and in Canada that is mostly to do good.

I am also an NDP supported and lean towards socialism-communism.
 
Sassylassie
#2
Yes, I support our troops.
Why, my husband is a retired Military Pilot who volunteered to go to Croatia. What he witnessed I won't discuss.
Political preference: None--all the current parties make me ill. Find me an honest man to lead an honest party and I will vote again.
 
Johnny Utah
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Now I will put it to a poll to see if people on this forum support Canadian troops. This is a question at the Canadian members, but I don't see why not other members like in America or overseas can't post as well.

i would like to know why?

And where you are politically? (Just for fun)

-----------

I being a member of the Canadian Forces support it full-heartedly because we are basically family and even if you don't like the government, the individual soldier is doing his mission for his own reasons, and in Canada that is mostly to do good.

I am also an NDP supported and lean towards socialism-communism.

I support the Canadian Military for it's because of the men and women serving we are able to have and enjoy our freedoms we sometimes take for granted.
 
I think not
#4
Yes! And I am middle of the road in politics. Times like these JFK's words echo in my mind.

Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners, and necessity has made us allies. Those whom God has so joined together, let no man put asunder.

And no one ever will. Cheers to Canadians.
 
Jay
#5
Great post ITN!


I don't need to post in this thread because everyone knows where I stand on this topic.
 
Hank C
#6
good post but you are not going to get anyone who does not support the troops Jersay.....maybe the question should of been "do you support our troops in afghanistan?" or "do you support the missions our troops undertake?"

Like Jay I am sure I don't need to explain where i stand politically or militarily
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#7
Excellent post, I think not.

Yes, I support the Canadian Armed Forces and its soldiers, because they are the defenders of our peace, order and good government, our rights and freedoms, and an enthusiastic force for the betterment of the world. My party of preference is currently the Liberal Party of Canada.
 
Jersay
#8
Hank that is what is concluded about this.
 
Jersay
#9
Its okay for voting against the Canadian military because its your own opinion, but it would be fun to know who voted against supporting the Canadian military, and who will defend him or her when he or she is by themself.
 
Lotuslander
#10
I did not support the invasion of Iraq but am fully behind Canada's involvement in Afgahnistan. After 30 years of near constant war fare the Afghans need a helping hand to re-build their country and and fully welcome the global aid. It is a shame what Afgahnistan has become, a casualty of global politics in the age of the two super powers and of short sightedness. I hope Canadians are there for many years to come as I think it takes time for democratic instincts to be ingrained in a population. Rome wasn't built in a day as the saying goes nor will 30 years of war be forgootten in 5 years or ten years.

The same goes for Iraq if the US and the United Kingdom want to do the job right I think they are looking at an occupation of another 10 years at least! I know there is talk of withdrawls beginning this summer to be completed in 18 months but, I think if this plan is carried out civil war will ensue.
 
JomZ
#11
For the two people that actually said no, I do find it offensive that you do not reveal your reasons why you voted that way.

I for one have always respected the military of Canada and its history (well for the most part). Although, Canada has never been seen as a military superpower, I always felt that it required an efficient, effective and moderate military presence for the perseverance of its society.

I support our troops and bid them good luck in their endeavours.
 
Hank C
#12
I wonder who those two swine are, cowards have to conceal their identity because they lack the knowledge to defend themselves.....
 
Jersay
#13
Being a member of the Canadian military I don't care if someone doesn't support the Canadian military it is their choice under 'Free Speech'.

And I guess they don't want to be known, because when something happens I am sure they would like the military to come and protect them even though they don't support it.
 
Kreskin
#14
I will always support the military. I also support the Afghanistan mission.
 
PoisonPete2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C

I wonder who those two swine are, cowards have to conceal their identity because they lack the knowledge to defend themselves.....

RESPONSE: I am deadset against Canadian Forces occupation of Afghanistan because it is based on lies (check out my other posts). And if you think I know nothing of the situation I would challenge you to a debate anytime. Not name-calling, a debate.l
I do support our troops/ I think that it is shameful, the quality of housing, healthcare supports and wages. And if you want to talk about military hardware, well it is downright criminal. And members of the 'party in power' are the criminals. From the computer swindle at headquarters to the purchasing of the leaky subs bound for British scrapyard. From the continuing helecopter fiasco to the uniform mixup. From lack of reservist training to mothballing units.
We should be designing and manufacturing our own platforms for the conditions in which they would be deployed. Someone should actually do a cost/analysis. You may be surprised how our purchases underwrite advances of foreign technologies in exchange for outdated equipment. Remember the Avro with the Iriqious(?) engine. Halted under American pressure so we couldn't market it. And Hillier. I've never seen one man less capable of maintaining a military. Yes, that's history, but it's the history we have built upon. We have watched our sea and air capabilities badly diminished. Now we are about to embark on the new 'missile defense system' to kiss up to the USA despite its lack of effectiveness (ask the Pentegon scientists) and in disregard to those other tools of the trade to assert our sovereignty. We should review our commitments and alliances. My god we had to wait for a Russian transport to get our emergency team to New Orleans. Its moronic or as the Americans used to say we have snafu.
 
Mogz
Conservative
#16
Quote:

Although, Canada has never been seen as a military superpower

In World War II we were deemed the most effective ground forces in the World. Our Navy was deemed the best sub-hunters, and our Air Force pilots had the best kill ratio out of all the Allies. We were once a military super power, but those days are gone.

Quote:

I am deadset against Canadian Forces occupation of Afghanistan because it is based on lies

What lies? And dont say American expansion or oil because our military has no part in that.

Quote:

I do support our troops/ I think that it is shameful, the quality of housing, healthcare supports and wages. And if you want to talk about military hardware, well it is downright criminal. And members of the 'party in power' are the criminals. From the computer swindle at headquarters to the purchasing of the leaky subs bound for British scrapyard. From the continuing helecopter fiasco to the uniform mixup. From lack of reservist training to mothballing units.

I'll grant that the PMQs are disgusting, but healthcare and wages? Our soldiers receive 100% medical and dental coverage, and their dependants receive 100% medical and 90% dental coverage. No problem there. As for wages, we are the best paid military in the World when compared with national cost of living. With regard to "hardware", we have some of the most advanced military equipment in the World; the Coyote, the LAV-III, the TLAV, the G-wagon. As for the party in power, they've done nothing to the forces, as they haven't even been in office 6 months yet.

Quote:

Remember the Avro with the Iriqious(?) engine. Halted under American pressure so we couldn't market it.

Actually the ARROW with the Iroquois engines was halted due to out of control costs. The Americans had orders to buy 500 arrows upon completion, so why would they halt the production?

Quote:

And Hillier. I've never seen one man less capable of maintaining a military.

How is Hillier not capable of maintaining a military? First off it isn't his job to maintain it, but I see what you're getting it. He is a combat arms soldier, and the best CDS we've ever had. Henault, our previous CDS, was a waste of rations who never stood up for the troops. So answer this, what is wrong with Hillier. And dont say he's too outspoken as that isn't a negative quality for a leader.

Quote:

My god we had to wait for a Russian transport to get our emergency team to New Orleans.

It wasn't a Russian plane, it was an Antanov aircraft of Russian design. That's because the Liberal party never bought us heavy lift aircraft, or as Jean Chretien once said "a waste of money when we can rent them". A military should not have to rent resources.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#17
I don't think there is a real Canadian who doesn't support our troops and I voted yes in the above poll. Having said that, it is also possible that I won't indefinitely support Canada's involvment in American oil wars. If our troops can continue to do good things for the people in the area, I'm all for it. If we start losing twenty people a day, they should come home because they won't be doing those "good" things and it is not in Canada's interest to just provide live bomb or gun fodder for anyone.
 
PoisonPete2
#18
[quote="Mogz"][quote]
Quote:

I am deadset against Canadian Forces occupation of Afghanistan because it is based on lies

What lies? And dont say American expansion or oil because our military has no part in that.

RESPONSE: What the hell do you think a military does in a democracy?? It serves to protect the economic interests of its controllers, so yes, oil is center stage.

[quote]
As for the party in power, they've done nothing to the forces, as they haven't even been in office 6 months yet.

RESPONSE: it should have been obvious that I was referring to whatever party is in power, not the Conservatives. But speaking of them, under Mulrooney they were mostly trying to line their pockets on the military spending. The same people are behind this new refabricated conservative party.

Quote:

Remember the Avro with the Iriqious(?) engine. Halted under American pressure so we couldn't market it.

Actually the ARROW with the Iroquois engines was halted due to out of control costs. The Americans had orders to buy 500 arrows upon completion, so why would they halt the production?

RESPONSE: dig a little deeper. It was nearing production stage. Yes it was the most expensive platform ever developed in Canada, but those costs had already been covered. The per unit costs would have been greatly reduced on full production. The project was halted because it would have been the only effective counter to the U2. That fact was pushed by the American aerospace industry on Ike. Dauglas and Lockheed did not like compitition. And of course the Canadian Conservatives liked to suck up to the Americans.

Quote:

So answer this, what is wrong with Hillier. And dont say he's too outspoken as that isn't a negative quality for a leader.

RESPONSE: as defence minister he demoralized the military. I quess you're too young to know that, but it still echoes in some parts.

Quote:

My god we had to wait for a Russian transport to get our emergency team to New Orleans.

It wasn't a Russian plane, it was an Antanov aircraft of Russian design.

RESPONSE: So it was a Russian transport, but because I said it, it can't be true. Is there some kind of peculiar bias creeping in here

Quote
That's because the Liberal party never bought us heavy lift aircraft, or as Jean Chretien once said "a waste of money when we can rent them". A military should not have to rent resources.

RESPONSE: so this discredits your response about having the best hardware in the world. In truth we don't. and if we started looking into design and production we would be lightyears ahead of where we are now. We can do it. We need to do it. And often the hardware we could produce would have civilian adoption / use. Like a good twin engine helecopter. But the Americans wouldn't stand for the compitition. Do we even make a decent rifle? I don't think so. We depend on makers such as Colt. and we know their safety record! and their record for smuggling weapons into Canada.
 
Sassylassie
#19
Mogz, Mogz you can't be calling your fellow lads and lassies cowards you have to be more creative. Try Pacifist. When my husband was promoted to the Heady heights of Senior Command he would come home baffled by the Military Members' excuses for not going on deployments. Here a few that were often used:

1. I'm from Quebec and I didn't join the military to fight. Most have probley been promoted to a senior level by now. Those who didn't/wouldn't go on operation tours were given French courses (I'm not kidding) went to staff collage Promoted to a Senior Rank and then permanant jobs in Ottawa.

2. I have gold fish and no family here to feed them, so help me god this is true.

3. I won't go and you can't make me, and he couldn't .

4. I'm pregnant, how far along? Well I'm not pregnant yet but I will be by the time the deployment comes around.

Please tell me that in the past 7 years these bottom feeders aren't being catered to anymore.

P.S. I am talking about the Air and Navy.
 
PoisonPete2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Sassylassie

Mogz, Mogz you can't be calling your fellow lads and lassies cowards you have to be more creative. Try Pacifist. .

RESPONSE: It would be sad to see Canada turning into a copy of the USA.

"People have not been horrified by war to a sufficient extent ... War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today: John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
Mogz
Conservative
#21
First of pete, learn to quote.

Quote:

What the hell do you think a military does in a democracy?? It serves to protect the economic interests of its controllers, so yes, oil is center stage.

A lot more than that actually Pete. I served in Bosnia, did that have any economic impact on Canada? What about Somalia, where was the economic impact there? Haiti? Rwanda? The Golan Heights? Cyprus? Egypt? East Timor? The Congo? Every one of these operations that Canada put troops in to had no economic impact on our economy. Read the news and see the good we're doing in 'ghan, you might learn something.

Quote:

dig a little deeper. It was nearing production stage. Yes it was the most expensive platform ever developed in Canada, but those costs had already been covered. The per unit costs would have been greatly reduced on full production. The project was halted because it would have been the only effective counter to the U2. That fact was pushed by the American aerospace industry on Ike. Dauglas and Lockheed did not like compitition. And of course the Canadian Conservatives liked to suck up to the Americans.

Uh, the Arrow got more expensive per week due to design flaws. They had to utterly redesign the wings to fit the iroquois engines, something that cost tons of money that late in the game. With regard to the Arrow being a counter for the U2, that makes no sense. The Arrow was an all weather interceptor that was simply much faster than anything at that point in history. Why would the U2 shut down the best thing for the defence of North America just so that their BEST ally wouldn't have a potent aircraft, and as such deny themselves the same fighter? Lastly the U2 is still used today and aircraft can easily tackle them now, so why doesn't the U.S. place this moratorium on all super-sonic aircraft? Oh right, because the whole concept is intellectually bankrupt.

Quote:

as defence minister he demoralized the military. I quess you're too young to know that, but it still echoes in some parts.

General Hillier has never been the defence minister of Canada, what the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

So it was a Russian transport, but because I said it, it can't be true. Is there some kind of peculiar bias creeping in here

It wasn't a Russian transport, it was a Russian design. Our CF-18's are made by MacDonald-Douglas, yet they aren't American fighers, they're Canadian. Russia didn't own the aircraft that transport the relief team to New Orleans, it was owned by a French company. As for disagree with you, ever hear of fallacious writing? In a nutshell, your wording of the issue related to the antanov made it sound like we had used a Russian Air Force antanov, I disagreed with the intent of conveying the truth.

Quote:

so this discredits your response about having the best hardware in the world. In truth we don't. and if we started looking into design and production we would be lightyears ahead of where we are now. We can do it. We need to do it. And often the hardware we could produce would have civilian adoption / use. Like a good twin engine helecopter. But the Americans wouldn't stand for the compitition. Do we even make a decent rifle? I don't think so. We depend on makers such as Colt. and we know their safety record! and their record for smuggling weapons into Canada.

I never said we had the best hardware in the World. I do believe I said, and I quote:

Quote:

we have some of the most advanced military equipment in the World

Big difference there my friend. With regard to our equipment, there is nothing wrong with anything I listed above. We do have crap equipment, I will admit that, in fact i'm probably one of the chief advocates of getting better stuff, however I refuse to lump all stuff we use as crap. Our small-arms are fine, a lot of our land force vehicles are great, and our Navy has some decent vessels (also some crap ones). With making our own equipment, we do. Our LAV family are all built in Canada, those include:

Grizzlys
Cougars
Bisons
Huskys
Beavers
Badgers
Coyotes
LAV-IIIs
TLAVs

We've exported Grizzlys and LAV-IIIs to the U.S. Marine Corp and U.S. Army Stryker Brigade. In the fall of 2006 France intends to purchase 300 Coyotes after seeing them in action in Afghanistan. As for our rifle, you claim Colt makes it, you're wrong. The C-7, C-7A1, C-7A2, and C8 are all made by Diemaco Canada. They are based on the U.S. M-16A2 and U.S. M-4 Carbine, however are very different in both how they are gas operated and magazine fed. Our barrel on the C-7 is shorter, and we have an entirely different trigger mechanism to improve accuracy. Our weapons in terms of small arms are great. You can take a C-7, bury it in sand (which i've practically done), and it'll fire fine. The U.S. M-16A2 doesn't fire well in cold weather due to how its gas cycle works. We took that flaw and improved it on our C-7s, which fire fine in temperatures up to -50. Lastly we have exported C-7's and C-8's Word wide. In fact the Dutch Army has bought 50,000 C-7s and the Danish Marines use the C-7 due to how well it performs when wet. Also Belgium, France, and Spain have bought C-7's. I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this issue Pete, or at least try not to argue it with a soldier. Whatever suits you best.
 
Jay
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Mogz


General Hillier has never been the defence minister of Canada, what the hell are you talking about?


This guy maybe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hellyer
 
Mogz
Conservative
#23
Oh god that idiot. The moron who's brain-child was military unification. Every time I see a member of the "purple trades" I want to egg his house. That issue makes me angry, it ranks right up there with peaceniks. Ugh.
 
snoop
#24
Canada has been known as a "negotiator country" however I think it is always right to have military forces. For example in Mexico (which everyone knows is a peacefull country) we use our military forces to help in emergency situation such as hurricans, earthquakes, etc.
However, if the question is regarding Afghanistan, then I would say not. Everyone knows this war has hidden (or should I say buried -like oil-) reasons.
 
PoisonPete2
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Mogz

First of pete, learn to quote.

RESPONSE: my form of quote was correct

(quote)
A lot more than that actually Pete. I served in Bosnia, did that have any economic impact on Canada?

RESPONSE: The discussion was about support in Afghanistan. If you bring in other theatres of conflict, the dynamic changes.

Uh, the Arrow got more expensive per week due to design flaws. They had to utterly redesign the wings to fit the iroquois engines, something that cost tons of money that late in the game.

RESPONSE: yes, and the money was spent, and the changes made (as I indicated). All the investment was lost when the project was mothballed following completion.

(quote)
With regard to the Arrow being a counter for the U2, that makes no sense. The Arrow was an all weather interceptor that was simply much faster than anything at that point in history. Why would the U2 shut down the best thing for the defence of North America just so that their BEST ally wouldn't have a potent aircraft, and as such deny themselves the same fighter? Lastly the U2 is still used today and aircraft can easily tackle them now, so why doesn't the U.S. place this moratorium on all super-sonic aircraft? Oh right, because the whole concept is intellectually bankrupt.

RESPONSE: you are either blowing smoke or you do not have an idea of what you are saying. The Arro was the only interceptor capable of the steep climb and rate and accuracy needed to target the U2, which flew at 70thousand feet. The industry objection was that the Arro may fall into the wrong hands. The U2 was made by Lockheed, an American company that did not want Canadian competition. And if the Arro "was simply much faster than anything at that point in history" do you not think it would have gone into production after all that money was spent? Did you not know that today most intelligence surveillence is done from satalite, not from airplanes. So the arguement is intellectually bankrupt. The U2 was used in the Gulf War but there was a 'clear sky' condition (read no enemy in the air). It is now used for research and surveillence over South America.

Quote:

as defence minister he demoralized the military. I quess you're too young to know that, but it still echoes in some parts.

General Hillier has never been the defence minister of Canada, what the hell are you talking about?

RESPONSE: I do regret the repeated mispelling of the name Hellier. Not even sure that is the proper spelling. I don't sit here with books. First name Paul. Now head of a political party.
 
PoisonPete2
#26
Diemaco Canada makes weapons under liscence to Colt. Are you familiar with the history of Colt? the many soldiers maimed by the breach blow-outs due to the known ammunition design flaws.
 
Jersay
#27
Hey Sassy, what are you saying about Quebec people.

I'm from Quebec and I want to go on any overseas deployment that I can. However I have to meet all my qualifications first.
 
Mogz
Conservative
#28
Quote:

The discussion was about support in Afghanistan. If you bring in other theatres of conflict, the dynamic changes.

Funny, here's what you said:

What the hell do you think a military does in a democracy?? It serves to protect the economic interests of its controllers

You never specified Afghanistan there chief. You used a general term. I proved you wrong.

Quote:

yes, and the money was spent, and the changes made (as I indicated). All the investment was lost when the project was mothballed following completion.

Nice back track. That stance is nothing like how your stance started out. Yes the investment was lost, I never said I agreed the arrow should have been axed, i'm merely educating you as to the REAL reason the project was squashed.

Quote:

you are either blowing smoke or you do not have an idea of what you are saying. The Arro was the only interceptor capable of the steep climb and rate and accuracy needed to target the U2, which flew at 70thousand feet. The industry objection was that the Arro may fall into the wrong hands. The U2 was made by Lockheed, an American company that did not want Canadian competition. And if the Arro "was simply much faster than anything at that point in history" do you not think it would have gone into production after all that money was spent? Did you not know that today most intelligence surveillence is done from satalite, not from airplanes. So the arguement is intellectually bankrupt. The U2 was used in the Gulf War but there was a 'clear sky' condition (read no enemy in the air). It is now used for research and surveillence over South America.

How does an aircraft fall in to the wrong hands? You don't just park your airplane in a bad neighbourhood, wake up one morning, and realize "oh damn, someone planejacked me". That is the dumbest thing i've ever heard, that's tantamount to saying a B2 Spirit might fall in to Iranian hands and therefore shouldn't have ever been constructed. Or better yet, the Joint Strike Fighter might be stolen by Al-qaeda, quick, stop production. With regard to the Arrow itself, I fully understand what it was capable of, but with that said I fail to see how the U.S. could deem an allied aircraft a threat. It's in the same ballpark as the U.S. deeming British control of nuclear warheads a threat, it's just sheer folly. Couple that with the fact that the U.S. had, as I said earlier, planned to intially buy hundreds of the aircraft and your whole argument doesn't make any sense. Laslty about South America, explain that U2 that thundered in near Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates last year? That's kind of off course from South America no?

Quote:

Diemaco Canada makes weapons under liscence to Colt. Are you familiar with the history of Colt? the many soldiers maimed by the breach blow-outs due to the known ammunition design flaws.

The rifle may be "licence built", but that's becasue the C series weapons are BASED on Colt design. The same goes for the U.S. Stryker IFV. It is built BASED on Canadian design, and therefore subject to licence by GMCD. With regard to the breach blow-outs, I honestly didn't know that, but as I said above, the C series weapons are BASED on Colt design, they're not replicas. Also, some general FYI, Canada makes its own ammo .
 
Sassylassie
#29
I'm not picking on Quebec, it was an example. Viva La Quebec, merci. Jersey I hope you get your wish to go over seas.
 
cortez
#30
[quote="Mogz"]
Quote:

Although, Canada has never been seen as a military superpower

In World War II we were deemed the most effective ground forces in the World. Our Navy was deemed the best sub-hunters, and our Air Force pilots had the best kill ratio out of all the Allies. We were once a military super power, but those days are gone.

[quote]

those days are gone----- GOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Similar Threads

0
support these troops?
by Stretch | Oct 18th, 2008
30
Define 'support our troops'
by Locutus | Jul 2nd, 2007
8
Can you support the troops but not the war?
by csanopal | Feb 10th, 2007
27
Support your troops?
by Gonzo | Sep 27th, 2006
no new posts